Re the call for a retrial for Ghislaine Maxwell

[FluffyBooBoo]

Apparently the defence are calling for a retrial because one of the jurors was a victim of child sex abuse - they had to answer questions, one of which was (I am paraphrasing) 'have you, your family or friends experienced sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual assault'

AIBU to think that there are very few women out there that haven't experienced some form of sexual harassment, and the chances of anyone (male or female) not knowing someone affected by one of these things is highly unlikely? And that the people on the jury therefore are likely to be men that don't talk about these things? Not convinced that's ideal tbh.

That's not the reason, the reason is that the juror publicly shared their jury experience and how they persuaded the other jurors to find GM guilty.

And it was a man.

It was a man

Well it's not true that most people have experienced sexual abuse as a child. Or necessarily know anyone who has. If the juror lied that's bad news.

@ZenNudist

Well it's not true that most people have experienced sexual abuse as a child. Or necessarily know anyone who has. If the juror lied that's bad news.

They didn't ask about child sex abuse though. They asked about sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sexual assault.

We don't know yet if the jurors lied.

It's very frustrating that her lawyers appear to have found a reason to appeal the verdict.

I thought in the States jurors are allowed to share their experiences once the verdict is given?

@sweetbellyhigh

That's not the reason, the reason is that the juror publicly shared their jury experience and how they persuaded the other jurors to find GM guilty.

I'm just starting how it was said on the news report I saw, and the specifics aren't relevant to my question - which is to do with jury selection.

I thought the whole point was to be tried by a jury of your peers. Those peers may have experienced all sorts of things. Some of them may even be paedophiles or be the sort of person who would have been only too happy to take what Ghislaine was offering. You'd have to start screening juries for all sorts of things to make sure none of the jurors had ever been affected by the issues at hand. Nobody who has ever been burgled could sit on a jury for a robbery for eg. Doesn't make sense.

Why on earth did he go public? Stupid man

@FluffyBooBoo

The jury selection isn't the reason for the retrial call (as you have stated in your OP)

And it is normal to try to assemble a biased jury, that is entirely the point of the defence team.

I would have thought that if you answered 'yes' to the question then you would be asked further questions about it, rather than just booted out immediately.

This man is saying he didn't notice the question at all.

@sweetbellyhigh

And it was a man.

I know it was a man.

But men are a) less likely to be affected by sexual abuse, sexual harassment and sexual assault and
b) are less likely to speak about these things with their friends and family and so are less likely to know if the people around them are affected by these issues

She was always going to appeal and in this case I actually agree she should have a right too. Jury members should not have previous trauma that relates to something close to the case it makes it highly unlikely they can be objective.

I think she will be found guilty again.

There seems, these days, and a lot on this forum, to exist the opinion that a fair trial under the law is not that important for certain crimes. In fact, the opinion seems to be that a trial merely exists for the humiliation of the defendant and justice for the victims.

Show trials are very popular in repressive regimes, for just the above reasons, with the outcome never in doubt.

A retrial is not being called for because a juror shared their experiences, it is being called because the juror failed to declare a bias when specifically asked (they said that they ‘rushed through’ the form).

If the trial was flawed, there should be a retrial. In fact, the more heinous the crime, the more justice should be seen to be fair and even handed.

[quote sweetbellyhigh]@FluffyBooBoo

The jury selection isn't the reason for the retrial call (as you have stated in your OP)

And it is normal to try to assemble a biased jury, that is entirely the point of the defence team.[/quote]
The news report that I saw stated that this was the reason. And as I've said, that isn't related to the question.

Which is basically AIBU to think that most women have been subject to some form of sexual harassment and so there's a tiny number of people that don't know someone affected by one of these things.

@drpet49

Why on earth did he go public? Stupid man

Because there's an awful lot of money to be made out of such a huge trial

As you say many people have experienced sexual abuse, mainly women. And their experience is important and should not be seen as invalid. Are others really saying that if you have experience of a crime your opinion has no value? Will definitely skew juries. And are potential jurists asked if they have ever raped assaulted or harassed women?

@TheReluctantPhoenix

There seems, these days, and a lot on this forum, to exist the opinion that a fair trial under the law is not that important for certain crimes. In fact, the opinion seems to be that a trial merely exists for the humiliation of the defendant and justice for the victims.

Show trials are very popular in repressive regimes, for just the above reasons, with the outcome never in doubt.

A retrial is not being called for because a juror shared their experiences, it is being called because the juror failed to declare a bias when specifically asked (they said that they ‘rushed through’ the form).

If the trial was flawed, there should be a retrial. In fact, the more heinous the crime, the more justice should be seen to be fair and even handed.

Agree

If i were GM i would be seeking a tell all deal and get a reduced sentence, its inconceivable she acted alone nor that JE was the only abuser.

I wonder if she regrets not giving evidence herself.

The point is that the jury must convict based on the evidence that they have witnessed in court, not based on the experiences of others who use their own situations to influence them.

It wasn’t relevant that this particular Jura had been sexually abused because he wasn’t abused by GM, and it was not about him, it was about her victims.

As frustrating at it is, if someone has done something that means she has not had a fair trial, she should be allowed a retrial.

As you say many people have experienced sexual abuse, mainly women. And their experience is important and should not be seen as invalid. Are others really saying that if you have experience of a crime your opinion has no value? Will definitely skew juries. And are potential jurists asked if they have ever raped assaulted or harassed women? no, it doesn’t. The trial is about other people, not a platform for the jury to give their own experiences, especially when you haven’t declared those experiences and have then used them to influence a verdict.

@Alexandra2001

If i were GM i would be seeking a tell all deal and get a reduced sentence, its inconceivable she acted alone nor that JE was the only abuser.

I wonder if she regrets not giving evidence herself.

Do you honestly think it'd benefit her in any way?